Replies

You mistake my legitamite evaluation that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel himself with the idea that Daniel was not a real prophet, but sorry, there are many historical details of Daniel (and the fact that a very significant amount was written in Aramaic, and that it confuses geography with terms that would not have existed until much later in history) that are obviously put onto paper by someone much later than the events described. I have no doubt that Daniel was a real prophet whose teachings were preserved, but I do not think that book was written by him, and really, that is pretty obvious with the vaguest intellectual inquiry.

"You mistake my legitamite evaluation that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel himself with the idea that Daniel was not a real prophet"

Perhaps, but as you will see, I do not grant that your evaluation of Daniel is the final word. You seem to be basing your opinion on some dated material. One example is the Aramaic issue you brought up. Forgive an extended quote...

"The Languages of Daniel

Dan. I: 1-2: 4a and 8-11 are written in Heb., the intervening chs. in Aram., the lingua franca of the Babylonian and Persian Empires. The reason is unknown; speculations range over different sources, loss of a complete Heb. version, attempt to restrict access to the semipolitical prophecies, the Heb. introduction fitting the book for Scripture, a bilingual composer-and many Jews were bilingual passing easily from one language to the other. Comparison with the Heb. of the rest of the OT and the Aram. preserved in other documents led to characterization of both languages as later than the sixth century B.C., more appropriate to the second.

Recent studies invalidate the linguistic arguments, especially in showing the Aram. is most likely to. belong to the sixth to fourth centuries B.C - though it could just be later. The Persian loanwords are quite at home in a sixth century context, and even the three Greek musical terms do not force the date to be lowered. See the detailed investigation by K. A. Kitchen in D. J. Wiseman and others, Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel pp. 3 I -79; his results have been accepted by leading linguists."

From TIBC, Ed. F.F Bruce

So you see there are some good arguments, and maybe some information that might change your opinion - perhaps you are too hasty in dismissing Daniel.